More sandbox games have limited, or no pvp at all.
Even newer sandbox like AOW doesnt have full loot pvp. These misconceptions lead people down the wrong path and need to stop.
Newer games like Archeage wont have full loot either nor will several other sandbox style games coming out later on.
AoW is a sandpark by the developer's own admission -_-... take your own advice with misconceptions.
In that same vein Ascheron's Call is also classified as a sandpark by its characteristics ...........blah blah blah...........
No such thing as a sandpark or a hybrid.... -cue a couple of paragraphs of self-vindication with more opinions than facts and no proof stated-
Now if you want to talk on equal footing go check where the term sandbox originated and which MMOs shaped its definition (hint it ain't Ascheron's Moan or any of the craptastic open world grindfests you seem to dellude yourself into calling sandboxes).
Also fun fact: A themepark is not a limited sandbox, it doesn't even come from the same area, a sandbox has very little to no character progression, the in-game goals are so different as to beg the questions why even put them in the same room, the options of what you want to do is completely up to you (you could only see what the developers left in place, example: EVE Online's missioning, or you could see the plethora of services you could provide in the emergent gameplay experience, example from eve: being a black/red frog freighter pilot, running an investment bank, running a lottery, becoming a professional spy, becoming a assets thief, etc) whereas in open world/themepark games your options are drastically limited by classes/optimal skill builds, area available for housing, area available for sculpting, area available for crafting (if it allows husbandry or farming), etc,etc because again with no real FFA full loot (everything is lost but not everything can be looted) your worlds are static, once crap gets put down unless the guys owning it leave the game and the game has a gold sink via taxing (thus houses and whatnot get repoed) your world will never change beyond the first few weeks/months, ergo the games without strife are not sandboxes, they are at best sandparks, at worse themeparks with sandbox elements glued on without any real consideration or depth.
I couldn't find anything in that mess that really addressed his point. There's no such thing as a 'sandpark.' It's a term used by people who have binary views of MMOs and don't really understand how they work. Every MMO is a combination of at least two types of content. The three most common are Themepark, Sandbox and Social. The third one is taboo around here save for the requisite "Where's the community?!?!?!" threads that pop up during the first wqeek of every MMO release.
You'd be hard pressed to find many MMOs that aren't a combination of at least themepark and sandbox content, if not more.
Since when do you split MMOs into 3 with the 3rd being a social MMO? All MMOs are supposed to be social games (Massively Multiplayer Online games) and you'd be hard pressed to justify that splitting o.O ( I mean what's a social heavy MMO? Second Life? O.o).
Hard pressed to find pure or at least close to pure sandbox games? really? because excluding tutorial "quests" the following have no themepark elements whatsoever: Entropia Universe, want another? Salem, need more? EVE-Online (you could make a case missions are quests but the analogy doesn't really work as quests in traditional themepark games serve to either a) progress a storyline, b)provide experience to help leveling or c) time sink (read dalies) and missions in EVE are completely optional whereas in themeparks you can't avoid them especially if it's a grindy themepark) and one more for the trip: Ultima Online pre-trammel (quests in it were optional with only monetary rewards, most people b-lined it for a tree and got to crafting arrows for gold).
And if you think only Salem's recent, those are the released ones, coming down the pipeline we have Albion, Trials of Ascension, Project Universe and Embers of Caerus (the first would be a true sandbox with everything in the game player based, the 2nd and 3rd if they ever get going properly will be sandbox titles as well, Project Universe being a civilization scale sandbox with the whole Earth up for people to get cracking in and before you ask: you start, as a community, in the neolitic and go up from there, and Embers of Caerus I'm tentatively gonna say is gonna be EVE-Online Medieval edition).
You'd be hard pressed to say Entropia or EVE-Online have themepark elements, even more so than justifying splitting social into its own MMO sub-genre (if you take that away you get...a single player game so to talk MMO is to assume social is in already).
Ok, they're getting longer and less relevant each time, so this is the last one I'm replying to.
"Since when do you split MMOs into 3 with the 3rd being a social MMO?"
I don't. I explained that MMOs are not solely one type of content; they are a combination of multiple types. You respond with an argument about social MMOs, three sub-genres, something about Salem and then give a list of games that don't exist yet to try to prove your point.
/slowclap
It's obvious by now that I'm wasting my time talking to you as you're not even reading my replies (at least I hope that's the case). Have fun in your little world where "MMOs are not solely one type of content" though the discussion was never about content, it was about freedom of interactions and emergent gameplay and how those two notions relate to themeparks, sandboxes and their hybrids and how the lack of unrestricted, full loss/partial loot or full loot, PVP would move a game from the sandbox genre to the subgenre of open world games or even themepark genre.
Well seem like most Sandbox developers dont want to go outside the box when it comes to PvP ruleset,
So my question is,
is there perhaps a way to make FFA Full Looting PvP fun instead of a griefest?
What if there was a benefit to not getting looted as well as when you get looted, so there could compensate and take the negative distress of FFA Full Loot and drop it.
What you feel could make FFA Full Loot gameplay more fun and less distressful?
Simple .. don't play any game that has it. It is not like there is a lack of other entertainment.
not a lot of sandbox mmos have no FFA PvP. so pretty hard to avoid.
Don't play sandbox MMOs then. It is not like they are your only entertainment option.
On the same note, YOU could leave MMORPGs alone and go play Your lobby COOP cames instead of repeatedly calling for MMORPGs to become lobby based COOP games.
I really enjoy a good sandbox however the issue is also sustainability... You play your character and climb through the ranks develop skills and perhaps even branch out to do some exploration... After all for me a sandbox is about explorations and existing in a world... Much like a good wine you hope the world gets better with age as people start to spread out...
The issue with the FFA no holds barred system is the fact that it is no longer about living and existing in a world, it becomes about COMPETING... This is where the entire dynamic of trhe genre changes...
Just because YOU CAN kill someone and pick them clean, doesn't mean you should... I mean you could go out of your home and walk up to someone on the street and proceed to hack them to bits with a butcher knife, take their clothes, wallet shoes, etc. but we have boundaries and social structure that is non existent in the Sandbox genre...
Instead you have those basement dwelling neckbears that will clear their calendar for a week/month and grind up so far ahead of the curve in order to make things a living hell for others.
A developer may have the intention of players being able to coexist beside one another tending to crops ,building a house, creating a town, exploring some unknown area of the map, hunting animals for meat and skins... Where yes I can build a house next to another player and if his crops are coming in better than mine I could kill him and steal his shit... however that doesn't mean I would (in game)
Some games have changed the way they work and are structured because this was never their intention... Look at UO... A world that you could do pretty much anything... you could interact with everything... it turned into a shit hole because there were a few players that wanted to shit all over everyone else (24/7 all the time) and therfore the game design was altered... While people to this day will reminisce about the gold ol' days of UO where it was a harsh world and anything can happen... Those players that took it to the extreme ruined that for everyone...
We can look back at SWG, this showed that there were players that just wanted to be Uncle Owen and live out in the world as a moisture farmer... Could you do something like this in say, Darkfall? NO... becasue some douche would come up to you and kill you take your stuff and would be back in an hour to do it again...
There are no social constraints... The exception being some of the new crops of games coming out... Age of Wushu is one, but the theme park elements overshadow many of the samdbox ones.. however if you want to be the asshole running around being wreckless you will be penalized for it. You also have to really enjoy the very specific Chinese Era of the game or it will not be fun. Archeage appears to be taking a similar direction but from reviews seems to have very strong themepark elements to it...
Sandboxes will never have that feeling of being truly immersive living worlds if all players want to do is use them for giant battle arenas and not stop to appreciate everything around them. It seems n one gives a damn about anyone outside of their own circle to respect the person that just wants to branch out for a stroll and not want to get face raped in the process. This is what is wrong with the FFA PVP sandbox genre... Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Originally posted by Wraithone In a word no. Unless one happens to be a Goonie type. These days I completely avoid FFA full loot PvP games. They attract the wrong types of people, and I have no interest in playing moving target to such zealots.
I almost thought that was a informed opinion... until you said the word zealot... now I am wondering if one of these
made you love goonies so much XD.
I loved my sniper zealot. I continued to use it long after it fell out of fashion.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Originally posted by Wraithone In a word no. Unless one happens to be a Goonie type. These days I completely avoid FFA full loot PvP games. They attract the wrong types of people, and I have no interest in playing moving target to such zealots.
I almost thought that was a informed opinion... until you said the word zealot... now I am wondering if one of these
made you love goonies so much XD.
I loved my sniper zealot. I continued to use it long after it fell out of fashion.
they're still relatively fashionable in wormholes though for obvious reasons sniping tends not to be used that much and close range brawls it can get a bit dicey if the enemy has a parasitic complex legion.
Meh. Lobby-games. Where the 'social' is external to the 'game.'
So? What is wrong with "social" external to the game? Social is social. People is people. It is not like people don't chat about real world stuff in guild chat. There is no difference between internal or external to the game.
Meh. Lobby-games. Where the 'social' is external to the 'game.'
So? What is wrong with "social" external to the game? Social is social. People is people. It is not like people don't chat about real world stuff in guild chat. There is no difference between internal or external to the game.
Now there's a pet peeve of mine, too much of that nonsense, talking about real life in game chat channels and I start muting/blocking people. (no seriously, I do, especially if the discussion turns to excesses in vices, sports or other non-interesting topics)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The way to have a sandbox attract the most amount of players is to have 90% of the world be a no-PK zone. And then have that 10% be a massive PvP game within a game, with castles to take and defend, fortifications to build and have destroyed, and any other fun you want to think of.
Meh. Lobby-games. Where the 'social' is external to the 'game.'
So? What is wrong with "social" external to the game? Social is social. People is people. It is not like people don't chat about real world stuff in guild chat. There is no difference between internal or external to the game.
Sounds like you need a single player game and a Facebook account instead of an MMORPG
Meh. Lobby-games. Where the 'social' is external to the 'game.'
So? What is wrong with "social" external to the game? Social is social. People is people. It is not like people don't chat about real world stuff in guild chat. There is no difference between internal or external to the game.
Sounds like you need a single player game and a Facebook account instead of an MMORPG
Or people need to get their stick dislodged from their large intestine and actually accept people with different playstyles , hey I maybe a FFA PVP militant but I accept anyone regardless of their playstyle (especially if the game has katana swords, if it does griefers are even more welcome ).
Meh. Lobby-games. Where the 'social' is external to the 'game.'
So? What is wrong with "social" external to the game? Social is social. People is people. It is not like people don't chat about real world stuff in guild chat. There is no difference between internal or external to the game.
Sounds like you need a single player game and a Facebook account instead of an MMORPG
There are MMORPGs like SP online games with some social features. Otherwise, why do you think i am here?
More sandbox games have limited, or no pvp at all.
Even newer sandbox like AOW doesnt have full loot pvp. These misconceptions lead people down the wrong path and need to stop.
Newer games like Archeage wont have full loot either nor will several other sandbox style games coming out later on.
AoW is a sandpark by the developer's own admission -_-... take your own advice with misconceptions.
In that same vein Ascheron's Call is also classified as a sandpark by its characteristics ...........blah blah blah...........
No such thing as a sandpark or a hybrid.... -cue a couple of paragraphs of self-vindication with more opinions than facts and no proof stated-
Now if you want to talk on equal footing go check where the term sandbox originated and which MMOs shaped its definition (hint it ain't Ascheron's Moan or any of the craptastic open world grindfests you seem to dellude yourself into calling sandboxes).
Also fun fact: A themepark is not a limited sandbox, it doesn't even come from the same area, a sandbox has very little to no character progression, the in-game goals are so different as to beg the questions why even put them in the same room, the options of what you want to do is completely up to you (you could only see what the developers left in place, example: EVE Online's missioning, or you could see the plethora of services you could provide in the emergent gameplay experience, example from eve: being a black/red frog freighter pilot, running an investment bank, running a lottery, becoming a professional spy, becoming a assets thief, etc) whereas in open world/themepark games your options are drastically limited by classes/optimal skill builds, area available for housing, area available for sculpting, area available for crafting (if it allows husbandry or farming), etc,etc because again with no real FFA full loot (everything is lost but not everything can be looted) your worlds are static, once crap gets put down unless the guys owning it leave the game and the game has a gold sink via taxing (thus houses and whatnot get repoed) your world will never change beyond the first few weeks/months, ergo the games without strife are not sandboxes, they are at best sandparks, at worse themeparks with sandbox elements glued on without any real consideration or depth.
I couldn't find anything in that mess that really addressed his point. There's no such thing as a 'sandpark.' It's a term used by people who have binary views of MMOs and don't really understand how they work. Every MMO is a combination of at least two types of content. The three most common are Themepark, Sandbox and Social. The third one is taboo around here save for the requisite "Where's the community?!?!?!" threads that pop up during the first wqeek of every MMO release.
You'd be hard pressed to find many MMOs that aren't a combination of at least themepark and sandbox content, if not more.
Since when do you split MMOs into 3 with the 3rd being a social MMO? All MMOs are supposed to be social games (Massively Multiplayer Online games) and you'd be hard pressed to justify that splitting o.O ( I mean what's a social heavy MMO? Second Life? O.o).
I think you were being facetious with that, but technically it does qualify as MMO. (RPG is debatable, and one might even question whether calling it a 'game' is applicable, but those aren't essential to MMO; just traditionally associated to the term.)
You'd be hard pressed to say Entropia or EVE-Online have themepark elements, even more so than justifying splitting social into its own MMO sub-genre (if you take that away you get...a single player game so to talk MMO is to assume social is in already).
Meh. Lobby-games. Where the 'social' is external to the 'game.'
Second life is a virtual world ^^ not an MMO.
'Virtual world' is a subtype of MMO, not a seperate category altogether. Most sandboxes (which are what this thread is about) aim to be 'virtual worlds' as well.
And as for Lobby-games being non-social... that's as opinion based as you can get really because a lobby based game would be more social than a massively multiplayer one (take world of tanks for example, without platoon mates 6-7 out of 10 games are not gonna be fun at all, read: lemmings) because you depend on others more than in a massive persistent world common of themepark games.
I didn't say they were non-social. I said the social aspects are external to the gameplay.
Note, for Narius: I didn't say they were bad games either. Don't get your panties in a bunch over the labelling systems.
Now there's a pet peeve of mine, too much of that nonsense, talking about real life in game chat channels and I start muting/blocking people. (no seriously, I do, especially if the discussion turns to excesses in vices, sports or other non-interesting topics)
Yeah, I'm an a$$ some times.
Why is that nonsense? That is socialization. Different people want to chat about different stuff.
I don't see there is any right way to chat. In fact, chatting is about finding out more about the person you are chatting with.
More sandbox games have limited, or no pvp at all.
Even newer sandbox like AOW doesnt have full loot pvp. These misconceptions lead people down the wrong path and need to stop.
Newer games like Archeage wont have full loot either nor will several other sandbox style games coming out later on.
AoW is a sandpark by the developer's own admission -_-... take your own advice with misconceptions.
In that same vein Ascheron's Call is also classified as a sandpark by its characteristics ...........blah blah blah...........
No such thing as a sandpark or a hybrid.... -cue a couple of paragraphs of self-vindication with more opinions than facts and no proof stated-
Now if you want to talk on equal footing go check where the term sandbox originated and which MMOs shaped its definition (hint it ain't Ascheron's Moan or any of the craptastic open world grindfests you seem to dellude yourself into calling sandboxes).
Also fun fact: A themepark is not a limited sandbox, it doesn't even come from the same area, a sandbox has very little to no character progression, the in-game goals are so different as to beg the questions why even put them in the same room, the options of what you want to do is completely up to you (you could only see what the developers left in place, example: EVE Online's missioning, or you could see the plethora of services you could provide in the emergent gameplay experience, example from eve: being a black/red frog freighter pilot, running an investment bank, running a lottery, becoming a professional spy, becoming a assets thief, etc) whereas in open world/themepark games your options are drastically limited by classes/optimal skill builds, area available for housing, area available for sculpting, area available for crafting (if it allows husbandry or farming), etc,etc because again with no real FFA full loot (everything is lost but not everything can be looted) your worlds are static, once crap gets put down unless the guys owning it leave the game and the game has a gold sink via taxing (thus houses and whatnot get repoed) your world will never change beyond the first few weeks/months, ergo the games without strife are not sandboxes, they are at best sandparks, at worse themeparks with sandbox elements glued on without any real consideration or depth.
I couldn't find anything in that mess that really addressed his point. There's no such thing as a 'sandpark.' It's a term used by people who have binary views of MMOs and don't really understand how they work. Every MMO is a combination of at least two types of content. The three most common are Themepark, Sandbox and Social. The third one is taboo around here save for the requisite "Where's the community?!?!?!" threads that pop up during the first wqeek of every MMO release.
You'd be hard pressed to find many MMOs that aren't a combination of at least themepark and sandbox content, if not more.
Since when do you split MMOs into 3 with the 3rd being a social MMO? All MMOs are supposed to be social games (Massively Multiplayer Online games) and you'd be hard pressed to justify that splitting o.O ( I mean what's a social heavy MMO? Second Life? O.o).
I think you were being facetious with that, but technically it does qualify as MMO. (RPG is debatable, and one might even question whether calling it a 'game' is applicable, but those aren't essential to MMO; just traditionally associated to the term.)
You'd be hard pressed to say Entropia or EVE-Online have themepark elements, even more so than justifying splitting social into its own MMO sub-genre (if you take that away you get...a single player game so to talk MMO is to assume social is in already).
Meh. Lobby-games. Where the 'social' is external to the 'game.'
Second life is a virtual world ^^ not an MMO.
'Virtual world' is a subtype of MMO, not a seperate category altogether. Most sandboxes (which are what this thread is about) aim to be 'virtual worlds' as well.
And as for Lobby-games being non-social... that's as opinion based as you can get really because a lobby based game would be more social than a massively multiplayer one (take world of tanks for example, without platoon mates 6-7 out of 10 games are not gonna be fun at all, read: lemmings) because you depend on others more than in a massive persistent world common of themepark games.
I didn't say they were non-social. I said the social aspects are external to the gameplay.
Note, for Narius: I didn't say they were bad games either. Don't get your panties in a bunch over the labelling systems.
o.O I am not, you're just mislabling things and claiming that is how things are. Also the social aspects of lobby games are anything but external especially now with voice systems and many non-MMO games including more social functions (co-op, drop in multiplayer, etc).
Well seem like most Sandbox developers dont want to go outside the box when it comes to PvP ruleset,
So my question is,
is there perhaps a way to make FFA Full Looting PvP fun instead of a griefest?
What if there was a benefit to not getting looted as well as when you get looted, so there could compensate and take the negative distress of FFA Full Loot and drop it.
What you feel could make FFA Full Loot gameplay more fun and less distressful?
Simple .. don't play any game that has it. It is not like there is a lack of other entertainment.
not a lot of sandbox mmos have no FFA PvP. so pretty hard to avoid.
What are we talking about here Darkfall and DFUW? those are not really sandboxes.
I agree just avoid the Full loot games all together. They are just play grounds for gankers, and the only way to stop the grief is to dumb items down so much and make them so easy to get their just no reason to have them in the first place.
In the end support up coming sandboxes that aren't full and the objective of 90% of the player base is to hunt down and gank lower level players. Rather then support and put up with sandoxes that have decided the main purpose of their game is PhP (players hunting players)
Well seem like most Sandbox developers dont want to go outside the box when it comes to PvP ruleset,
So my question is,
is there perhaps a way to make FFA Full Looting PvP fun instead of a griefest?
What if there was a benefit to not getting looted as well as when you get looted, so there could compensate and take the negative distress of FFA Full Loot and drop it.
What you feel could make FFA Full Loot gameplay more fun and less distressful?
Simple .. don't play any game that has it. It is not like there is a lack of other entertainment.
not a lot of sandbox mmos have no FFA PvP. so pretty hard to avoid.
What are we talking about here Darkfall and DFUW? those are not really sandboxes.
I agree just avoid the Full loot games all together. They are just play grounds for gankers, and the only way to stop the grief is to dumb items down so much and make them so easy to get their just no reason to have them in the first place.
In the end support up coming sandboxes that aren't full and the objective of 90% of the player base is to hunt down and gank lower level players. Rather then support and put up with sandoxes that have decided the main purpose of their game is PhP (players hunting players)
Welcome to humanity's true face, if there was no consequence to killing someone in real life you think people wouldn't kill each other for the stupidest things? The need for order won out against our more primal tendencies in real life and if in a game you have that freedom then it is up to the players to enforce order on the chaos, but I guess most people are too busy being special snowflakes, the only ones who can kill 10 boars or gather 5 blue mushrooms or that craft adamantium edifices of ever larger sizes in lieu of getting down and dirty, be the grunts for a tactician bent on eradicating disorder and creating a spot they can call their own where they can make their edifices, leave their mark and defend it. This is a sandbox game, a real one and if you think that's not a game but a virtual world need I remind everyone that games in the end are interactive experiences and that it takes a great game to let you craft your own experience within it without limiting other people's choices for experiences (even if that choice is to ram a sharp stick up someone's... you get the picture).
Meh. Lobby-games. Where the 'social' is external to the 'game.'
So? What is wrong with "social" external to the game? Social is social. People is people. It is not like people don't chat about real world stuff in guild chat. There is no difference between internal or external to the game.
Sounds like you need a single player game and a Facebook account instead of an MMORPG
There are MMORPGs like SP online games with some social features. Otherwise, why do you think i am here?
Originally posted by Mavolence Much,much,much,much less emphasis on the importance of items. Back in UO i cared not when i got dry looted because the items were just not that important to me, i easily replaced them and had a house just full of stock piles that it took me a few minutes to get back re armor,arm,pot,aids and recall back into the fray kill and reloot both his and my own set i had just lost.
This.
Don't make PvP gear-centric. Allow there to be poor, average, good, better, best gear, but flatten out the benefits between them. Make poor armor easily craftable, good gear somewhat challenging and the best gear very difficult to craft. Then make gear permanently destructable or don't allow it to be picked up and reused without some kind of crafting modification. Replacing equipment should not be painful unless it's the best equipment, in which case you should follow the axiom "don't wear what you can't afford to lose."
More sandbox games have limited, or no pvp at all.
Even newer sandbox like AOW doesnt have full loot pvp. These misconceptions lead people down the wrong path and need to stop.
Newer games like Archeage wont have full loot either nor will several other sandbox style games coming out later on.
AoW is a sandpark by the developer's own admission -_-... take your own advice with misconceptions.
In that same vein Ascheron's Call is also classified as a sandpark by its characteristics ...........blah blah blah...........
No such thing as a sandpark or a hybrid.... -cue a couple of paragraphs of self-vindication with more opinions than facts and no proof stated-
Now if you want to talk on equal footing go check where the term sandbox originated and which MMOs shaped its definition (hint it ain't Ascheron's Moan or any of the craptastic open world grindfests you seem to dellude yourself into calling sandboxes).
Also fun fact: A themepark is not a limited sandbox, it doesn't even come from the same area, a sandbox has very little to no character progression, the in-game goals are so different as to beg the questions why even put them in the same room, the options of what you want to do is completely up to you (you could only see what the developers left in place, example: EVE Online's missioning, or you could see the plethora of services you could provide in the emergent gameplay experience, example from eve: being a black/red frog freighter pilot, running an investment bank, running a lottery, becoming a professional spy, becoming a assets thief, etc) whereas in open world/themepark games your options are drastically limited by classes/optimal skill builds, area available for housing, area available for sculpting, area available for crafting (if it allows husbandry or farming), etc,etc because again with no real FFA full loot (everything is lost but not everything can be looted) your worlds are static, once crap gets put down unless the guys owning it leave the game and the game has a gold sink via taxing (thus houses and whatnot get repoed) your world will never change beyond the first few weeks/months, ergo the games without strife are not sandboxes, they are at best sandparks, at worse themeparks with sandbox elements glued on without any real consideration or depth.
I couldn't find anything in that mess that really addressed his point. There's no such thing as a 'sandpark.' It's a term used by people who have binary views of MMOs and don't really understand how they work. Every MMO is a combination of at least two types of content. The three most common are Themepark, Sandbox and Social. The third one is taboo around here save for the requisite "Where's the community?!?!?!" threads that pop up during the first wqeek of every MMO release.
You'd be hard pressed to find many MMOs that aren't a combination of at least themepark and sandbox content, if not more.
Since when do you split MMOs into 3 with the 3rd being a social MMO? All MMOs are supposed to be social games (Massively Multiplayer Online games) and you'd be hard pressed to justify that splitting o.O ( I mean what's a social heavy MMO? Second Life? O.o).
I think you were being facetious with that, but technically it does qualify as MMO. (RPG is debatable, and one might even question whether calling it a 'game' is applicable, but those aren't essential to MMO; just traditionally associated to the term.)
You'd be hard pressed to say Entropia or EVE-Online have themepark elements, even more so than justifying splitting social into its own MMO sub-genre (if you take that away you get...a single player game so to talk MMO is to assume social is in already).
Meh. Lobby-games. Where the 'social' is external to the 'game.'
Second life is a virtual world ^^ not an MMO.
'Virtual world' is a subtype of MMO, not a seperate category altogether. Most sandboxes (which are what this thread is about) aim to be 'virtual worlds' as well.
And as for Lobby-games being non-social... that's as opinion based as you can get really because a lobby based game would be more social than a massively multiplayer one (take world of tanks for example, without platoon mates 6-7 out of 10 games are not gonna be fun at all, read: lemmings) because you depend on others more than in a massive persistent world common of themepark games.
I didn't say they were non-social. I said the social aspects are external to the gameplay.
Note, for Narius: I didn't say they were bad games either. Don't get your panties in a bunch over the labelling systems.
o.O I am not,
You lost me there. You're not... what?
you're just mislabling things and claiming that is how things are.
In what way?
By suggesting that a service with very little game but plenty of Massive, Multiplayer & Online qualifies for MMO? Yeesh, what next - you going to tell me drag queens who don't pass aren't in drag?
Also the social aspects of lobby games are anything but external especially now with voice systems and many non-MMO games including more social functions (co-op, drop in multiplayer, etc).
We must have a different idea of what 'social' means, here. Or differing ideas of what "part of the gameplay" means.
Comments
It's obvious by now that I'm wasting my time talking to you as you're not even reading my replies (at least I hope that's the case). Have fun in your little world where "MMOs are not solely one type of content" though the discussion was never about content, it was about freedom of interactions and emergent gameplay and how those two notions relate to themeparks, sandboxes and their hybrids and how the lack of unrestricted, full loss/partial loot or full loot, PVP would move a game from the sandbox genre to the subgenre of open world games or even themepark genre.
*cheering, loud applause*
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I really enjoy a good sandbox however the issue is also sustainability... You play your character and climb through the ranks develop skills and perhaps even branch out to do some exploration... After all for me a sandbox is about explorations and existing in a world... Much like a good wine you hope the world gets better with age as people start to spread out...
The issue with the FFA no holds barred system is the fact that it is no longer about living and existing in a world, it becomes about COMPETING... This is where the entire dynamic of trhe genre changes...
Just because YOU CAN kill someone and pick them clean, doesn't mean you should... I mean you could go out of your home and walk up to someone on the street and proceed to hack them to bits with a butcher knife, take their clothes, wallet shoes, etc. but we have boundaries and social structure that is non existent in the Sandbox genre...
Instead you have those basement dwelling neckbears that will clear their calendar for a week/month and grind up so far ahead of the curve in order to make things a living hell for others.
A developer may have the intention of players being able to coexist beside one another tending to crops ,building a house, creating a town, exploring some unknown area of the map, hunting animals for meat and skins... Where yes I can build a house next to another player and if his crops are coming in better than mine I could kill him and steal his shit... however that doesn't mean I would (in game)
Some games have changed the way they work and are structured because this was never their intention... Look at UO... A world that you could do pretty much anything... you could interact with everything... it turned into a shit hole because there were a few players that wanted to shit all over everyone else (24/7 all the time) and therfore the game design was altered... While people to this day will reminisce about the gold ol' days of UO where it was a harsh world and anything can happen... Those players that took it to the extreme ruined that for everyone...
We can look back at SWG, this showed that there were players that just wanted to be Uncle Owen and live out in the world as a moisture farmer... Could you do something like this in say, Darkfall? NO... becasue some douche would come up to you and kill you take your stuff and would be back in an hour to do it again...
There are no social constraints... The exception being some of the new crops of games coming out... Age of Wushu is one, but the theme park elements overshadow many of the samdbox ones.. however if you want to be the asshole running around being wreckless you will be penalized for it. You also have to really enjoy the very specific Chinese Era of the game or it will not be fun. Archeage appears to be taking a similar direction but from reviews seems to have very strong themepark elements to it...
Sandboxes will never have that feeling of being truly immersive living worlds if all players want to do is use them for giant battle arenas and not stop to appreciate everything around them. It seems n one gives a damn about anyone outside of their own circle to respect the person that just wants to branch out for a stroll and not want to get face raped in the process. This is what is wrong with the FFA PVP sandbox genre... Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
What are your other Hobbies?
Gaming is Dirt Cheap compared to this...
I loved my sniper zealot. I continued to use it long after it fell out of fashion.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
they're still relatively fashionable in wormholes though for obvious reasons sniping tends not to be used that much and close range brawls it can get a bit dicey if the enemy has a parasitic complex legion.
So? What is wrong with "social" external to the game? Social is social. People is people. It is not like people don't chat about real world stuff in guild chat. There is no difference between internal or external to the game.
Now there's a pet peeve of mine, too much of that nonsense, talking about real life in game chat channels and I start muting/blocking people. (no seriously, I do, especially if the discussion turns to excesses in vices, sports or other non-interesting topics)
Yeah, I'm an a$$ some times.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Sounds like you need a single player game and a Facebook account instead of an MMORPG
Or people need to get their stick dislodged from their large intestine and actually accept people with different playstyles
, hey I maybe a FFA PVP militant but I accept anyone regardless of their playstyle (especially if the game has katana swords, if it does griefers are even more welcome 
).
There are MMORPGs like SP online games with some social features. Otherwise, why do you think i am here?
'Virtual world' is a subtype of MMO, not a seperate category altogether. Most sandboxes (which are what this thread is about) aim to be 'virtual worlds' as well.
I didn't say they were non-social. I said the social aspects are external to the gameplay.
Note, for Narius: I didn't say they were bad games either. Don't get your panties in a bunch over the labelling systems.Why is that nonsense? That is socialization. Different people want to chat about different stuff.
I don't see there is any right way to chat. In fact, chatting is about finding out more about the person you are chatting with.
o.O I am not, you're just mislabling things and claiming that is how things are. Also the social aspects of lobby games are anything but external especially now with voice systems and many non-MMO games including more social functions (co-op, drop in multiplayer, etc).
What are we talking about here Darkfall and DFUW? those are not really sandboxes.
I agree just avoid the Full loot games all together. They are just play grounds for gankers, and the only way to stop the grief is to dumb items down so much and make them so easy to get their just no reason to have them in the first place.
In the end support up coming sandboxes that aren't full and the objective of 90% of the player base is to hunt down and gank lower level players. Rather then support and put up with sandoxes that have decided the main purpose of their game is PhP (players hunting players)
Welcome to humanity's true face, if there was no consequence to killing someone in real life you think people wouldn't kill each other for the stupidest things? The need for order won out against our more primal tendencies in real life and if in a game you have that freedom then it is up to the players to enforce order on the chaos, but I guess most people are too busy being special snowflakes, the only ones who can kill 10 boars or gather 5 blue mushrooms or that craft adamantium edifices of ever larger sizes in lieu of getting down and dirty, be the grunts for a tactician bent on eradicating disorder and creating a spot they can call their own where they can make their edifices, leave their mark and defend it. This is a sandbox game, a real one and if you think that's not a game but a virtual world need I remind everyone that games in the end are interactive experiences and that it takes a great game to let you craft your own experience within it without limiting other people's choices for experiences (even if that choice is to ram a sharp stick up someone's... you get the picture).
I often wonder.
This.
Don't make PvP gear-centric. Allow there to be poor, average, good, better, best gear, but flatten out the benefits between them. Make poor armor easily craftable, good gear somewhat challenging and the best gear very difficult to craft. Then make gear permanently destructable or don't allow it to be picked up and reused without some kind of crafting modification. Replacing equipment should not be painful unless it's the best equipment, in which case you should follow the axiom "don't wear what you can't afford to lose."
You lost me there. You're not... what?
In what way?
By suggesting that a service with very little game but plenty of Massive, Multiplayer & Online qualifies for MMO? Yeesh, what next - you going to tell me drag queens who don't pass aren't in drag?
We must have a different idea of what 'social' means, here. Or differing ideas of what "part of the gameplay" means.